John Preston Fields v. Department of the Army
Background
- John Preston Fields, a federal employee, appealed his placement on furlough effective July 8, 2013, claiming he qualified as a "deployed civilian" and was exempt.
- An MSPB administrative judge issued an initial decision on September 23, 2015, affirming the agency’s furlough; Fields did not request a hearing.
- Fields filed a petition for review (PFR) on March 23, 2016 — roughly four months after the 35-day PFR deadline.
- The Clerk notified Fields his PFR appeared untimely and provided a form and deadline to move for waiver for good cause; Fields did not file such a motion.
- Fields argued on review that intervening Board decisions (notably an In re Redstone Arsenal initial decision issued March 4, 2016) created good cause because they supported his deployed-civilian claim.
- The Board dismissed the PFR as untimely and denied waiver, holding that post-deadline new precedent does not constitute good cause and that Board initial decisions are nonprecedential.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fields's PFR was timely filed | Fields did not contend it was timely; filed March 23, 2016 | Agency relied on Board rules that PFR was due within 35 days after Sept. 23, 2015 decision | PFR was untimely (filed ~4 months late) |
| Whether Board should waive the PFR deadline for good cause | New precedent (In re Redstone Arsenal initial decision issued after deadline) created good cause to excuse delay | Regulations require showing of due diligence and circumstances beyond control; intervening nonprecedential decisions do not justify waiver | Waiver denied; new precedent after deadline is not good cause |
| Whether a subsequently-issued Board initial decision binds this appeal | Fields relied on In re Redstone Arsenal initial decision finding similar employees exempt | Agency/Board noted initial decisions are nonprecedential and not controlling | In re Redstone Arsenal does not mandate reversal; Board initial decisions lack precedential value |
| Finality and further review rights | Fields sought reconsideration via PFR | Agency maintained initial decision stands absent timely PFR | Board dismissed PFR; initial decision remains final; Fields may seek Federal Circuit review within 60 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrison v. Office of Personnel Management, 114 M.S.P.R. 453 (2010) (standard for showing good cause requires due diligence)
- Alonzo v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 180 (1980) (good-cause showing framework)
- Moorman v. Department of the Army, 68 M.S.P.R. 60 (1995) (factors for evaluating good cause for untimely filings)
- Olson v. Department of Agriculture, 91 M.S.P.R. 525 (2002) (new precedent after deadline does not establish good cause)
- Deem v. Office of Personnel Management, 58 M.S.P.R. 468 (1993) (untimely petition cannot be excused by later decisions)
- Shiansky v. Department of Transportation, 33 M.S.P.R. 103 (1987) (Board precedent on timeliness and waiver principles)
- Roche v. Department of Transportation, 110 M.S.P.R. 286 (2008) (initial decisions are nonprecedential)
- Rockwell v. Department of Commerce, 39 M.S.P.R. 217 (1988) (Board decisions on precedential value)
- Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (federal appellate rule that courts normally cannot waive statutory filing deadlines)